Is Satan a creationist?

[Lotan]

This one's pretty simple really. Satan* just loves to deceive people, and so do creationists (eg. quoting out of context, carving human footprints next to dino tracks, repeating discredited arguments, etc etc etc). So, are these creationists doing the devil's work for him?

*Devil: Greek word diabolos - dia=through; ballo=to throw (38 ref.) - slanderer,
misrepresenter, deceiver, divider, accuser, divider

[otseng]

They are:

• There are individuals in virtually every group who are willing to resort to deception to achieve their goals.
• The fact that some people resort to deception does not prove anything about anyone else.
• The fact that there are people in some group who deceive does not prove that the beliefs of the group are false.
• Therefore, the presence of deceptive individuals tells us nothing

Thank you Jose. I agree with these points.

Let's see if we can do this by examining a randomly-chosen example (that is, I Googled "deception by evolutionists" and clicked on hit #1, which happened to be godandscience.org)

Interesting that you pointed this site out. We've been getting lots of hits from their forum lately.

I wasn't aware that there was a 'theory of creation'.

I used the term "theory" loosely. (more on the "theory of creation" below)

Aren't Christians supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the secular world?

Perhaps, but it is irrelevent to the discussions on C vs E.

Someone could be a murderer and locked up in an insane asylum and thinks he being abducted at night and still be able to formulate ideas that are true.

According to Christian doctrine this type of behavior is more typical of...
A) God
B) Satan

It only reinforces the idea that man is fallen and in need of a Savior

So you choose B?

Yes, I would choose B. But, again irrelevent.

With this type of reasoning, I could say that non-Christians do not follow God. Therefore they follow Satan. And since they follow Satan, everything that they believe is false. Obviously such a conclusion would be incorrect.

If someone has good evidence to support creationism, that's great, but how am I supposed to find it if it's tossed in with all the baloney? Is it because it's all baloney?

Actually, for the purposes of debate on this forum, what really matters is arguing against the evidence and reasoning that has been presented here, rather than how other people act on other websites.

Again, as we discussed in another tread, accuracy does matter. Because if you are talking about the SToE vs the SToC, then there isn't any SToC at all. There is no scientific evidence that has passed the application of the Scientific Method.

Perhaps another thread needs to be created on accuracy of terminology. But, yes, creationism doesn't have a theory (at least as far as I know). But, one reason for that is because creationism is a composite of multiple ideas, which includes the cosmological argument, anthropic principle, intelligent design, global flood theory, as well as some others.

So if you are actually talking science, then there is no question at all that only the SToE is a "tenable theory."

Again, all I'm saying is that how people act has no bearing whether it is tenable or not.

[Jose]

I wasn't aware that there was a 'theory of creation'.

I used the term "theory" loosely.

If we are to refer to the Theory of Evolution, and compare it to a Theory of Creation, then we have to use the same definition for the term "theory." If we are not going to use the same definition, then we should stop using the term. The ToE uses the term by its precise scientific meaning, as "an explanation that has been tested extremely often, and not yet disproven." Creationists like to play the "just a theory" game, in which they misrepresent the definition of "theory" to be synonymous with "guess." Many people don't know the difference, which is fine (but unfortunate), but the publicly-vocal anti-evolutionists who use this logic do know the difference.

There cannot be a ToC by the scientific definition of "theory" because there has never been a test of the hypothesis, let alone a very large number of tests. Therefore, the only possible ToC must use the colloquial meaning of "theory" and say creation is a guess.

I'm not trying to belittle a presumed ToC, but merely to make sure we know the definitions of the terms. C and E are completely different levels of explanations, that have completely different standards for the use of evidence. We'd be better off if we used the term "model" because "model" does not imply any particular level of evidence.

With this type of reasoning, I could say that non-Christians do not follow God. Therefore they follow Satan. And since they follow Satan, everything that they believe is false. Obviously such a conclusion would be incorrect.

You make the point nicely about questions that offer only two possible answers where many exist.

Actually, for the purposes of debate on this forum, what really matters is arguing against the evidence and reasoning that has been presented here, rather than how other people act on other websites.

Except that for this thread, it does matter. The question is precisely about what others do. The question is posed in a rather cute, ironic way--implicitly contrasting Christian morals and beliefs with the well-documented actions of some Christians. It is an interesting question for all of us. If these guys are making things up, and spreading falsehoods in order to undermine people's understanding of science, how can they justify this while pretending to be "Christian"? If they really are Christians, and really believe in Satan, don't the rules imply that they are doing Satan's work?

[jerickson314]

So it doesn't matter that it is "wrong," that the numbers don't fit?

No. IT ISN'T WRONG. THE NUMBERS DO FIT.

Or are you saying that God never imagined that we would get to the point where we would need Pi to be more accurate than what is given?

That's why He gave us brains that could study math. That's not what the Bible is for.

And THIS PASSAGE IS NOT INTENDED TO CONVEY PI. The value of pi is simply an inference from what the passage says, and only a weak conclusion is possible at that.

So you are saying that everything in the Bible are "approximations"?

No, I said that all MEASUREMENTS, whether in the Bible or not, are approximations. This statement cannot logically be extended to apply to anything beyond NUMERICAL MEASUREMENTS.

Yet you insist that creation is literally true, f.ex?

Creation is a separate account. We do not find numerical measurements in the creation account. The creation account was in a separate book of the Bible written by a separate author. Therefore, no conclusion about creation can logically follow from any argument you have given dealing with this passage.

And I do not insist that creation is literally true in the same sense that some claim. I do believe in old-earth creationism. I consider theistic evolution a significant possibility but have yet to see good evidence for it, either biblically or scientifically.

It didn't "intend" to tell us that? So you are saying that the message of the Bible is not necessarily in the literal text, right?

.

NO!

Pi is not mentioned in that passage. Read it literally. It talks about measurements dealing with a certain pool. Therefore, it was only "intended" to tell us about the pool, if we take it literally. A reading that is literal in your definition does not have pi in the message at all.

But there are times where there is a message outside of the literal text. Jesus's parables are a simple example. However, this does not seem to be the case with the passage we are discussing here.

Fascinating, then, that creationists insist that Genesis is to be read as literal as possible, that the "message" is a scientific description of how God created the world in exactly 6 days, regardless of how that might have been imprecise?

Even though I am not YEC, your argument against YEC still does not hold up. If you read both passages, you will see that Genesis is clearly talking about how creation happened, whereas the 1 Kings passages simply mentions MEASUREMENTS.

Guess that Genesis 1 has but one message, a rewriting of science textbooks, right?

Even a YEC would claim that there are clear theological messages in addition to the alleged scientific claims.

Or could it be that you are back to interpreting what is important, that the value of Pi is not important and that therefore what we can actually observe is "good enough" and we don't have to insist on the 3.0 as Pi,

The Bible does not mention pi. It simply mentions MEASUREMENTS that are consistent with good mathematics.

Yes, the value of pi has little importance from a theological perspective. The value of pi beyond 5 or 10 digits has little purpose beyond fun and testing supercomputers, in fact!

but the exact order and timing of how the world got to be is incredibly important and if we observe something else that the very literal word-for-word description, then we are simply wrong? Is that the message of Genesis 1, the science?

You are attacking YEC again. However, the comparison with pi is false.

Even a YEC would say that both the science and the theology are messages of Genesis 1.

Most OECs (like me) would say the same thing, but would recognize that the Hebrew allows much more room for literal interpretation than the English. The Hebrew, we would say, is all that really matters.

Most theistic evolutionists would say that only the theology is the message of Genesis 1.

I believe that people from all three perspectives can be genuine Christians, even though at most one can be right.

Or could it be that Genesis 1 is no more accurate than the value of Pi, and that whatever we observe actually does fit pretty well?

There is again no comparison between the value of pi and the creation account. No reasonable interpretation of the pi passage leads to the conclusion that pi is exactly three. However, one interpretation of Genesis that does seem at least reasonable leads to the YEC conclusions. I would still say that this interpretation is false based on the evidence I have seen, but nonetheless it is at least somewhat reasonable from a scriptural perspective.

So are creationists lying when they say that genesis 1 is so important scientifically that we have to use it in contrast to the observed and documented Scientific Theory of Evolution?

That is their interpretation, which is reasonable but nonetheless doesn't square up with some of the scientific evidence.

However, I like to be careful about giving an idea credit just because it is "scientific". On this one, looking at the evidence is important.

Specifically, can the evidence which led to the conclusion of evolution be reconciled with a literal creation account? This is what creationists attempt to prove. I have seen many, especially YECs, use some bad arguments, definitely.

Sure seems like you are leading creationists onto shaky ground here.

In what way?

But the "evolutionists" must all be democrats and thus ungodly, right? So it is still all a ploy by the devil, right?

I wouldn't say any of this. Nonetheless, I would still say that they might be wrong.

Just like the Bible potentially didn't try to provide us with a scientific description of origin, but rather had a different message to us, one that creationists have missed!

Well, the creationist claim is that we do have a scientific description of origin. This inference is much more reasonable than any inference that the Bible is trying to get pi across.

And even creationists (myself included) would say that the creation account carries both scientific and theological messages.

Science is also to be expected to do a better job at describing origin than the Bible, right?

A more detailed account, perhaps. However, not "better".

Just like mathematicians did a better job describing Pi.

The Bible did NOT describe pi. It presented MEASUREMENTS from which a ROUGH APPROXIMATION of pi could be inferred.

Mathematicians actually attempted to describe pi itself, and naturally were able to come up with a precise value.

You seem to be implying that the Bible did a bad job of describing pi. This is false.

The literal reading is indeed just that.

Pick a definition number and I'll explain to you why a literal interpretation is NOT indeed just that, or why I wouldn't hold the Bible to that kind of "literal":

literal
adj 1: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of
something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude
like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma"
[syn: actual, genuine, real]
2: without interpretation or embellishment; "a literal
translation of the scene before him"
3: limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; "a
literal translation" [ant: figurative]
4: lacking stylistic embellishment; "a literal description";
"wrote good but plain prose"; "a plain unadorned account
of the coronation"; "a forthright unembellished style"
[syn: plain, unembellished]
5: of the clearest kind; usually used for emphasis; "it's the
literal truth"; "a matter of investment, pure and simple"
[syn: pure and simple]
6: (of a translation) corresponding word for word with the
original; "literal translation of the article"; "an
awkward word-for-word translation" [syn: word-for-word]
n : a mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical
failures of some kind [syn: misprint, erratum, typographical
error, typo, literal error]

You interpret and fuzzy-math your way out of the literal reading, but it certainly is true that the very basic text states that radius is 5 and circumference is 30, and that Pi thus is 3.0

(It actually talks about the diameter rather than the radius, but the radius is a direct inference.)

My math isn't fuzzy, it's just the kind of math that is proper when discussing the physical world. It's what any good practical mathematician or scientist uses on a daily basis. It isn't what a theoretical mathematician would use, but this would be inappropriate for anything regarding the physical world.

Getting "pi=3" out of this is no more literal or valid than getting out "2.8<pi<3.2", except under really stupid definitions of "literal".

And ANY interpretation of ANY MEASUREMENT, NO MATTER WHAT simply requires that it is approximate.

You have argued that it is not precise, but that doesn't mean that the basic, literal reading does tell us that Pi is 3.0

You seem to be using some definition of "literal" such that it would be literally, logically, and mathematically impossible for the Bible to be right about this passage, no matter what it said.

However, even this kind of "literal" wouldn't necessarily present the same problem for the creation account. Therefore, you have still failed to establish any sort of connection.

So please cease your dishonest denial of this directly observable fact.

Please cease your dishonest denial of my simple, everyday mathematics.

WHOOOOAAAAAA!! "Context"? As in "not literal, but paying attention to the situation"? Isn't that a step AWAY from literal reading? Or don't you know what "literal" means, the reading of the words as they are written without interpretation or context adjustment? You might say that "common sense" is to look at context, but "literal sense" is very much to take the actual words at face value.

I guess you are using one of those silly straw man definitions of "literal", then.

People have gotten the Bible to say all sorts of things it doesn't say and to contradict itself by ignoring context. Clearly context is very important.

However, the creationist view is that context indicates that the text should be literally true. Not that it should just be taken as literal without regarding contrast. You are burning a straw man of even YEC.

"Common sense" is to claim that the measurements simply are not stated precise and with enough decimals etc. to get an accurate value of Pi,

No, the value is entirely accurate. It just isn't very precise. Literal doesn't mean "100% precision implied" under normal definitions of the word. But yes, common sense is critical to understanding the proper literal interpretation.

perhaps because the text was not about science but rather about God's message to us.

Right, in the case of 1 Kings. However, 1 Kings is not Genesis, despite both being in the Bible.

In the case of Genesis, any creationist would claim that both meanings of the text are correct.

And that does seem to be what you are trying to say here. It certainly is NOT "literal sense." But then, if we are talking context, if we are talking common sense, then we need to apply this throughout.

Correct. I guess you have been arguing against a form of "literal" that I wouldn't argue for anyway.

But seriously, any literal interpretation requires at least one significant context - the context of the language in which the text is written. I don't see how adding more context makes it any less "literal", under the definitions of "literal" that normal people use.

And that brings us back to Genesis 1. Is it "common sense" to look at Genesis as not a scientific description of origin, but rather as a message from God to us?

This is a matter of debate, not just clear "common sense". Most creationists would say that it is both a scientific description and a message from God.

It is "common sense" to look at the description, order and timing of Genesis 1 as not the "message" of Genesis 1.

It doesn't necessarily violate "common sense" to allow both interpretations at the same time. They do not contradict each other.

And thus, it is "common sense" to temper Genesis 1 with what we have observed and documented through science.

I agree with you 100% here.

If you look at Genesis 1 as a description of the universe and life as happening over time in a progressive and expanding fashion, then there is no disagreement with science.

There might potentially still be a conflict with evolution. I can see how they might be reconciled, but I don't know enough about Hebrew to decide if this is correct.

But the way you described Genesis 1 is quite close to how I view Genesis 1.

It just means that Genesis 1 was not particularly occupied with the scientific details.

The creationist argument is that all scientific details presented in Genesis 1 were accurate. Of course there was much more to the story than an account as short as Genesis 1 could give.

But here creationists are, insisting that the "message" of Genesis 1 is that every word is literally accurate, yet insisting that Pi is not literally 3.0 What a discrepancy. Creationists almost come across as hypocritical in that.

I did point out that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is more tenable given the context than an interpretation that pi is 3. However, I do see where many YECs have gone too far.

Really? "literal" doesn't mean "as the words read"? Fascinating claim. Now you have to redefine "literal" to make your point?

Discussed above. I would basically say "literal" as "what the words mean, taken collectively", if I were to word it myself.

Ah, like that if we look at the "level of accuracy" used in Genesis 1, then it is "works out quite well" with something else we have been able to observe, namely the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

You mean that what it really claims doesn't contradict with evolution? Seems possible, though I'd like more evidence.

This software and database is being provided to you, the
LICENSEE, by Princeton University under the following
license. By obtaining, using and/or copying this
software and database, you agree that you have read,
understood, and will comply with these terms and
conditions.:

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this
software and database and its documentation for any
purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted,
provided that you agree to comply with the following
copyright notice and statements, including the
disclaimer, and that the same appear on ALL copies of the
software, database and documentation, including
modifications that you make for internal use or for
distribution.

WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University. All
rights reserved.

THIS SOFTWARE AND DATABASE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT
NOT LIMITATION, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO
REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT- ABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF THE
LICENSED SOFTWARE, DATABASE OR DOCUMENTATION WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS
OR OTHER RIGHTS.

The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be
used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
distribution of the software and/or database. Title to
copyright in this software, database and any associated
documentation shall at all times remain with Princeton
University and LICENSEE agrees to preserve same.

[Lotan]

They are:
There are individuals in virtually every group who are willing to resort to deception to achieve their goals.
The fact that some people resort to deception does not prove anything about anyone else.
The fact that there are people in some group who deceive does not prove that the beliefs of the group are false.
Therefore, the presence of deceptive individuals tells us nothing

Thank you Jose. I agree with these points.

I'm afraid that Jose's conclusion here isn't logical, or at least, it's incomplete. A correct statement would be...
"Therefore, the presence of deceptive individuals tells us nothing about the group".
We've already been over this. Not every creationist practices deception, but some very well known, very influential creationists do. Moreover, I don't think that it would be much of a stretch to advance 'some' to 'most' or even 'practically all'. You had no objection to AiG and Dr. Dino as examples of well known, influential deceivers. Shall we include the ICR and Discovery Institute next? Fraud is so rampant among creationist organizations that it would be much easier if you could just suggest some honest sources of information on creationism. When the overwhelming majority of individuals within a group share the same characteristic it is not unfair to make generalizations about that group, provided that we remain aware that there are exceptions.

Aren't Christians supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the secular world?

Perhaps, but it is irrelevent to the discussions on C vs E.

Must all discussions on C vs E relate strictly to the claims made by either side? Are moral and spiritual considerations beside the point? I am trying to examine the C/E debate itself, not so much the evidentiary claims of either side. I fail to see how this is irrelevant on a forum devoted to "All things Creation and Evolution". Perhaps you would like to avoid the issue, but as a Christian and a creationist I should think that you would rather denounce and dissociate yourself from those who are harmful to your cause.

Someone could be a murderer and locked up in an insane asylum and thinks he being abducted at night and still be able to formulate ideas that are true.

Sure, but would you like to have them teaching your children?

With this type of reasoning, I could say that non-Christians do not follow God. Therefore they follow Satan. And since they follow Satan, everything that they believe is false. Obviously such a conclusion would be incorrect.

Obviously. Except that we're not talking about everything that these creationists do or say, we are talking specifically about their deceptive behavior which they know is wrong. I'm afraid that you have made a poor analogy.

Actually, for the purposes of debate on this forum, what really matters is arguing against the evidence and reasoning that has been presented here, rather than how other people act on other websites.

Much of the "evidence and reasoning that has been presented here" has been copied and pasted from these sites. You yourself have done so. The same bad arguments appear over and over. Maybe you don't care for it, but the dishonest teachings of these websites (and books, seminars, videos etc.) is something that "really matters" to me, and I don't feel that discussion of them is inappropriate for this particular forum for reasons that I have mentioned above.

But, yes, creationism doesn't have a theory (at least as far as I know).

Just another reason to consider the C/E debate as something other than a scientific debate.
By practising deception, these creationists demonstrate a lack of faith in both their religion and their science. By practising deception these creationists knowingly sin. By practising deception in the guise of education these creationists practice hypocrisy.

[Lotan]

OK. Can anybody suggest a source of information about creationism that doesn't resort to deception? Even one?

[israeltour]

OK. Can anybody suggest a source of information about creationism that doesn't resort to deception? Even one?

How about Genesis 1? If you see any deception there, that's Satan doing the deceiving... heeeyyyyy, maybe Satan is a creationist!! or an evolutionist. It's hard to think at 4am.

[steen]

OK. Can anybody suggest a source of information about creationism that doesn't resort to deception? Even one?

How about Genesis 1? If you see any deception there, that's Satan doing the deceiving... heeeyyyyy, maybe Satan is a creationist!! or an evolutionist. It's hard to think at 4am.

Except that Genesis 1 doesn't fit reality either. Certainly, bats didn't come before land animals, f.ex.

So in order to "explain" Genesis 1, there would have to be some form of deception in the rationalization as well.

[israeltour]

OK. Can anybody suggest a source of information about creationism that doesn't resort to deception? Even one?

How about Genesis 1? If you see any deception there, that's Satan doing the deceiving... heeeyyyyy, maybe Satan is a creationist!! or an evolutionist. It's hard to think at 4am.

Except that Genesis 1 doesn't fit reality either. Certainly, bats didn't come before land animals, f.ex.

Surely not, and Genesis 1 agrees with you! On Day 5, God created sea creatures and winged birds. Bats are winged rats (well, not technically rats, but they're not birds either). I would lump the bats under the creepy things of Day 6. Oh wait, that says creeping.

So in order to "explain" Genesis 1, there would have to be some form of deception in the rationalization as well.

No deception... omission. If you consider all omission deception, I would agree that it is in some cases, but not always, and not in regards to bats in Genesis 1.

[perplexed101]

creationists carving human footprints next to dino tracks

i would like to see the evidence presented towards your claim not assumptions neither.

[Lotan]

i would like to see the evidence presented towards your claim not assumptions neither.

Oh, all right...

"However, initial critical work in the early 1970's,[1] and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The alleged human tracks involve a variety of phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings."
From Man Tracks?
A Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
Copyright © 1992 by Glen J. Kuban

Or how about...
"It should also be noted that claims about human footprints have also been made for erosional markings, ambiguous depressions and a handful of outright carvings."
...and...
"Baugh, Patton and Hovind have shown no interest in publishing their "findings" in a scholarly way. This has meant that peer review of their claims has been by-passed, and their popular literature, videos and web site materials create the impression that creationists are a bunch of deluded amateurs who specialise in sensational reporting and have no commitment to scholarship or science."
From "Dinosaur and alleged Human Trackways" by David J. Tyler
for the The Biblical Creation Society !!! (actually, for a creationist site, this one isn't so bad. Here's their homepage.)

Here is some creationist equivocation...
Paluxy footprints - Real or Carved?

And here are some photos...


Ooh! They're so lifelike!